From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cloud v. Redbridge

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 27, 2021
2:17-cv-00297-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2021)

Opinion

2:17-cv-00297-MCE-AC

09-27-2021

MARSHALL CLOUD; JANICE FISTOLERA, Plaintiffs, v. REDBRIDGE; REDBRIDGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION; COMMON INTEREST MANAGEMENT SERVICES; DOES 1 through 5, inclusive; Defendants.


ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Russell S. Humphrey, counsel for Plaintiffs Marshall Cloud and Janice Fistolera in these proceedings, now moves to withdraw as said counsel. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to Humphrey's request.

This motion is governed by the requirements of Local Rule 182(d), which provides that an attorney may not withdraw, leaving a client in propria persona, absent noticed motion and an affidavit from counsel showing the efforts made to provide notification of the attorney's intent to withdraw.

Russell S. Humphrey has complied with those requirements and his request to withdraw is accordingly proper.

Because counsel's request is both procedurally correct and unopposed, Humphrey's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. Russell S. Humphrey is consequently relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiffs effective upon the filing of a proof of service of this signed Order on Plaintiffs.

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, this Court ordered the matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with Local Rule 230(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cloud v. Redbridge

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 27, 2021
2:17-cv-00297-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2021)
Case details for

Cloud v. Redbridge

Case Details

Full title:MARSHALL CLOUD; JANICE FISTOLERA, Plaintiffs, v. REDBRIDGE; REDBRIDGE…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 27, 2021

Citations

2:17-cv-00297-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2021)